Home › Forums › Housing › Some Homeless People Turn to Empty Houses for Shelter Amid Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis
- This topic has 15 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by Diego Mamani.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM #11849February 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM #154985Diego MamaniParticipant
This is fairly common at this stage of the cycle. Back in the mid 90s I had friends who got in the business of buying REO properties in the Inland Empire to fix up and quickly flip for a profit.
Unfortunately, they had to fight with squatters who had moved in when the properties were unoccupied. Calling the police was useless: the squatters usually claimed that they were tenants, some even produced fake rental contracts. At that point the cops give up and say that this is an issue for the courts.
February 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM #155264Diego MamaniParticipantThis is fairly common at this stage of the cycle. Back in the mid 90s I had friends who got in the business of buying REO properties in the Inland Empire to fix up and quickly flip for a profit.
Unfortunately, they had to fight with squatters who had moved in when the properties were unoccupied. Calling the police was useless: the squatters usually claimed that they were tenants, some even produced fake rental contracts. At that point the cops give up and say that this is an issue for the courts.
February 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM #155271Diego MamaniParticipantThis is fairly common at this stage of the cycle. Back in the mid 90s I had friends who got in the business of buying REO properties in the Inland Empire to fix up and quickly flip for a profit.
Unfortunately, they had to fight with squatters who had moved in when the properties were unoccupied. Calling the police was useless: the squatters usually claimed that they were tenants, some even produced fake rental contracts. At that point the cops give up and say that this is an issue for the courts.
February 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM #155287Diego MamaniParticipantThis is fairly common at this stage of the cycle. Back in the mid 90s I had friends who got in the business of buying REO properties in the Inland Empire to fix up and quickly flip for a profit.
Unfortunately, they had to fight with squatters who had moved in when the properties were unoccupied. Calling the police was useless: the squatters usually claimed that they were tenants, some even produced fake rental contracts. At that point the cops give up and say that this is an issue for the courts.
February 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM #155363Diego MamaniParticipantThis is fairly common at this stage of the cycle. Back in the mid 90s I had friends who got in the business of buying REO properties in the Inland Empire to fix up and quickly flip for a profit.
Unfortunately, they had to fight with squatters who had moved in when the properties were unoccupied. Calling the police was useless: the squatters usually claimed that they were tenants, some even produced fake rental contracts. At that point the cops give up and say that this is an issue for the courts.
February 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM #155215robyns_songParticipantIt’s funny that people think this is new. It’s not even cyclical; it’s always been this way but my guess is that people just don’t pay any heed until they notice it happening in their area.
Take for Detroit for instance (which is an extreme case). REO properties that get repeatedly broken in and re-occupied aren’t even worth doing the repeated evictions–usually they just get donated to the city (if the city will even take it). If the lender notices the property could be a potential problem before it forecloses, they’ll just write the property off.
Of course, I doubt we’ll lenders donating properties to the city of San Diego.
February 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM #155493robyns_songParticipantIt’s funny that people think this is new. It’s not even cyclical; it’s always been this way but my guess is that people just don’t pay any heed until they notice it happening in their area.
Take for Detroit for instance (which is an extreme case). REO properties that get repeatedly broken in and re-occupied aren’t even worth doing the repeated evictions–usually they just get donated to the city (if the city will even take it). If the lender notices the property could be a potential problem before it forecloses, they’ll just write the property off.
Of course, I doubt we’ll lenders donating properties to the city of San Diego.
February 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM #155500robyns_songParticipantIt’s funny that people think this is new. It’s not even cyclical; it’s always been this way but my guess is that people just don’t pay any heed until they notice it happening in their area.
Take for Detroit for instance (which is an extreme case). REO properties that get repeatedly broken in and re-occupied aren’t even worth doing the repeated evictions–usually they just get donated to the city (if the city will even take it). If the lender notices the property could be a potential problem before it forecloses, they’ll just write the property off.
Of course, I doubt we’ll lenders donating properties to the city of San Diego.
February 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM #155517robyns_songParticipantIt’s funny that people think this is new. It’s not even cyclical; it’s always been this way but my guess is that people just don’t pay any heed until they notice it happening in their area.
Take for Detroit for instance (which is an extreme case). REO properties that get repeatedly broken in and re-occupied aren’t even worth doing the repeated evictions–usually they just get donated to the city (if the city will even take it). If the lender notices the property could be a potential problem before it forecloses, they’ll just write the property off.
Of course, I doubt we’ll lenders donating properties to the city of San Diego.
February 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM #155593robyns_songParticipantIt’s funny that people think this is new. It’s not even cyclical; it’s always been this way but my guess is that people just don’t pay any heed until they notice it happening in their area.
Take for Detroit for instance (which is an extreme case). REO properties that get repeatedly broken in and re-occupied aren’t even worth doing the repeated evictions–usually they just get donated to the city (if the city will even take it). If the lender notices the property could be a potential problem before it forecloses, they’ll just write the property off.
Of course, I doubt we’ll lenders donating properties to the city of San Diego.
February 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM #155305Diego MamaniParticipantOf course this happens everywhere and all the time. But it’s a particularly acute problem when there’s a large number of unoccupied units following the bursting of a real estate bubble.
February 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM #155585Diego MamaniParticipantOf course this happens everywhere and all the time. But it’s a particularly acute problem when there’s a large number of unoccupied units following the bursting of a real estate bubble.
February 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM #155591Diego MamaniParticipantOf course this happens everywhere and all the time. But it’s a particularly acute problem when there’s a large number of unoccupied units following the bursting of a real estate bubble.
February 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM #155607Diego MamaniParticipantOf course this happens everywhere and all the time. But it’s a particularly acute problem when there’s a large number of unoccupied units following the bursting of a real estate bubble.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.